Sunday, September 29, 2013

PUBLIC WATER NOW TOWN HALL MEETING, October 8, 2013

ABSTRACT: WHO, WHAT, WHEN & WHERE of the PUBLIC WATER NOW Town Hall Meeting is presented.  ADDENDUM of links to Why Go Public? And links to footnoted material for 1. Private Water Companies are wrongly motivated and cost more and Frequently Asked Questions are provided.
 
“United we stand, Together we win!”

WHO: PUBLIC WATER NOW, Sponsor
WHAT: Town Hall Meeting for friends and neighbors

WHEN: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 @ 7:15 P.M.

WHERE: Carmel Middle School Gym
4380 Carmel Valley Rd.
Carmel, CA.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Call (831) 204-8641
Public Water Now
1120 Forest Ave. #208
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-5145
Email: info@publicwaternow.org
Online

ADDENDUM:

 Why Go Public?

1. Private Water Companies are wrongly motivated and cost more

Private water providers are monopolies. They are motivated mainly by their bottom line. The pressure to deliver high rates of return for shareholders drives them to drive up costs even when they are operating as regulated utilities. [i]

Averch-Johnson Effect

In a major analysis of state records throughout the US, it has been shown that private water companies charge, on the average, 33% more than community owned water companies. [ii]

Water Bill Comparison Study
Compiled by Food & Water Watch
Table 1: Comparison of Annual Household Water Bills of Public and Private Utilities by State(s)

Furthermore, private utilities are not more efficient than public utilities, according to a meta-analysis of 17 econometric studies about privatization and costs in water distribution by professors from Cornell University and the University of Barcelona.[iii]

Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies
Germà Bela, Mildred Warner
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 1337–1348

2. Publicly Owned Water companies qualify for cost savings NOT available to Cal-Am

3. We need to triple our investment in infrastructure

4. Cal-Am has a poor track record – even on simple stuff

5. Cal-Am is a poor fit

6. Public water will be monitored by all concerned citizens

7. Public Ownership is the only truly competitive option

8. The California Public Utilities Commission Costs Us All (dearly)

Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why should we replace California American Water (Cal-Am) as the supplier of the Peninsula’s water?
Q: What if Cal-Am refuses to sell?
Q: How much will it cost?
Q: Where will the purchase money come from and can we afford it?
Q: Will the acquisition costs show up in my water bill?
Q: What happens if Cal-Am builds new facilities and increases its value?
Q: Will the purchase of Cal-Am Assets slow down efforts to develop new water supplies?
Q: Why does Public Water Now think this effort will succeed?
Q: How does the Initiative work?
Q: Why the MPWMD?
Q: Can the MPWMD handle the additional responsibility?
Q: What about various opinions that Cal-Am is not for sale, MPWMD is not liked, corporate management is more efficient, eminent domain will take years, etc?
Q: Why does Cal Am claim this was tried in 2005 and defeated? 

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 AMENDED SCOPING MEMO AND ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER RULING

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Monterey Peninsula groundwater project will lag behind Cal Am's desalination plan
Groundwater replenishment review process to start with testimony in late 2014
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer,   09/25/2013
Highlight Excerpts:
The next key hearings on the Monterey Peninsula desalination project will be held in early December — in a process separate from the proposed groundwater replenishment project.
Public Utilities Commissioner Michael Peevey issued an order Wednesday setting the dates — Dec. 2-3 in San Francisco — and the issues to be covered. Those include "contested factual issues" such as the project's capacity, cost and financing, issues raised by PUC Judge Angela Minkin earlier this month.


ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, AMENDED SCOPING MEMO AND ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER RULING document is embedded. IT IS RULED that:
1. The scope of Phase 1 is set forth in Section 3 of this Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling.
2. The scope of Phase 2 is set forth in Section 4 of this Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling.3. The schedule for this proceeding is set forth in Section 5 of this Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling.
4. Administrative Law Judges Minkin and Weatherford are the Presiding Officers in this matter.
5. The ex parte rules applicable to ratesetting matters continue to apply, as set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 1701.3(c) and Rule 8.3(c).
Note: Hearings on Settlement Proposals, December 2-3, 2013.

Amended Scoping Memo and Assigned Commissioner Ruling Filing Date 09-25-13

Friday, September 20, 2013

City's IT Strategic Plan – Community Engagement Workshops & Information Technology Strategic Plan FY2013-2017 Working Document Draft - September 9, 2013

ABSTRACT: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is hosting three Community Engagement Workshops on the IT Strategic Plan on Tuesday, September 24 @ 5:30 P.M., Wednesday, September 25 at 11:30 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. at City Hall, eastside of Monte Verde St between Ocean Av. and 7th Av. The announcement from the City’s website is reproduced. And the Information Technology Strategic Plan FY2013-2017 Working Document Draft - September 9, 2013 is embedded.  Note: The Workshops are scheduled to occur without IT Manager Steve McInchak and computer tech Rose Franzen; both McInchak and Franzen are on paid administrative leave. The City has alleged wrongdoing by McInchak, but the City has not alleged publically any wrongdoing by Franzen.


The City is in the process of developing an Information Technology Strategic Plan.  This is a five year plan designed to be flexible and address IT infrastructure and enterprise wide needs, support applications and programs, and allow residents, businesses, visitors, staff and regional partners to have easy access to the information and transactions they need, anytime; anyplace.

The City would like to hear from the community about how you would like to do business with the City, how you would like to get information, and what kind of applications you think will help foster civic engagement.

What sounds good?  On line-business license and building permit applications?  Report a problem and track its resolution? Make service requests via the web and/or mobile devices? Mobile Applications? Comment on agenda items prior to meetings? Community Calendar? Discussion Forums?

Help us build capacity through collaboration by joining us at any of the following three (3) Community Engagement Workshops:

Tuesday – September 24, 2013
5:30 p.m. – City Hall
Wednesday – September 25, 2013
11:30 a.m. – City Hall

Wednesday – September 25, 2013
2:00 p.m. – City Hall


You can also view a draft of the Information Technology Strategic Plan and send us your ideas via the City’s website at ci.carmel.ca.us and clicking IT Strategic Plan or by sending an email to ITStrategicPlan@ci.carmel.ca.us.

   Carmel-by-the-Sea
Information Technology Strategic Plan
FY2013-2017
Working Document
Draft - September 9, 2013

Thursday, September 19, 2013

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE September 26, 2013

Mprwa Cancellation Notice 09-26-13 CANCELLATION NOTICE, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
September 26, 2013

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE September 30, 2013

Tac Mprwa Cancellation Notice 09-30-13 CANCELLATION NOTICE, OPTIONAL REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
September 30, 2013

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 REPLY COMMENTS OF COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY TO CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, REPLY COMMENTS OF COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY TO CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT document is embedded. Importantly, "Respondents continue to support the Large Settlement Agreement and urge the Commission to adopt it."


Reply Comments of County of Monterey and Mcwra to Consolidated Comments of Mcwd Filing Date 09-16-13
REPLY COMMENTS OF COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY TO CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY’S, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT’S, AND CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE’S REPLY COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO APPROVE THE GENERAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONCERNING PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

ABSTRACT:  Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY’S, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT’S, AND CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE’S REPLY COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO APPROVE THE GENERAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONCERNING PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION document is embedded. Importantly, "… the settlement agreements strike the appropriate balance among competing public interests and hence deserve the Commission’s support."
 
MPRWA, MPWMD, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE GROVE’S REPLY COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REPLY COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO APPROVE BOTH THE GENERAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REPLY COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO APPROVE BOTH THE GENERAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION document is embedded. Importantly, CONCLUSION…CAW respectfully requests that the Commission reject the claims set forth in the Collective Comments regarding the Large Settlement Agreement and the Sizing Settlement Agreement.


CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REPLY COMMENTS Filing Date 09-16-13
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REPLY COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO APPROVE BOTH THE GENERAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 COMMENTS BY WATER PLUS ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, COMMENTS BY WATER PLUS ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION document is embedded. Importantly, Conclusion ...Water Plus urges the Commission to approve a water supply totaling 15,565 acre-feet. A supply of this size will more nearly meet the project’s criteria of adequacy, reliability, and cost-effectiveness than the supply recommended in the proposed sizing agreement. Meeting these criteria as nearly as possible is in the public interest.


Comments by Water Plus on the Proposed Settlement Agreement on Plant Size and Level of Operation Filing Date 09-09-13
COMMENTS BY WATER PLUS ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION: Pre-Hearing Conference: Cal-Am (A.12-04-019), September 9, 2013

ABSTRACT: On Monday, September 16, 2013, ALJ Angela Minkin conducted a pre-hearing conference at California Public Utilities Commission headquarters in San Francisco. With regard to the settlement agreements, Minkin stated that she “wants more information about water demand and desalination plant sizing, cost and financing, at the heart of a proposed settlement agreement for California American Water's Peninsula water supply project,” according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald. Hearing on the settlement agreements are expected to occur in mid-November or early December.

Start Date:
9/16/2013
End Date:
9/16/2013
Subject:
Pre-Hearing Conference: Cal-Am
Message:
Pre-Hearing Conference: Cal-Am (A.12-04-019)

When: Sept. 16, 2013, 10 a.m.

Where: CPUC Courtroom, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco

Details: Pre-Hearing Conference in the Application of California-American Water Company for approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and authorization to recover all present and future costs in rates.


RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Judge calls for hearings on proposed desal deal
Water demand a key issue, JIM JOHNSON, Herald Staff Writer, 09/16/2013

Excerpt Highlights:
A state Public Utilities Commission judge wants more information about water demand and desalination plant sizing, cost and financing, at the heart of a proposed settlement agreement for California American Water's Peninsula water supply project.
Judge Angela Minkin said during a hearing on the project at CPUC headquarters in San Francisco on Monday those were among several topics she had questions about related to the settlement agreement, and would likely be conducting hearings on the agreement, probably in mid-November or early December.

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY JOINDER IN SURFRIDER FOUNDATION’S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY JOINDER IN SURFRIDER FOUNDATION’S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION document is embedded. Importantly, LandWatch Monterey County hereby joins in Surfrider Foundation’s Comments On The Proposed Settlement Agreement On Plant Size And Level Of Operation filed in this matter on August 30, 2013.   CONCLUSION …Surfrider Foundation respectfully urges the Commission to reject the Sizing Agreement. The settling parties have not carried their burden; the Commission should therefore make an independent determination of the appropriate size of the desalination component of the MPWSP and impose appropriate conditions to ensure that the project advances the public interest and meets the relevant environmental mandates. Without the EIR, the record is incomplete and cannot support the Sizing Agreement. If the Commission determines that the record will be insufficient to support the agreement even after the EIR's release, the Commission should direct further evidentiary hearings at the earliest reasonable date. The Commission's determination could require further evidence on topics including, but not limited to: (1) the amount of water that lots of record are reasonably likely to demand, (2) the expected demand from tourism bounce back, (3) how customer demand in each tier will change in response to the rate increases that the MPWSP will cause, and (4) how much potable water the Pacific Grove projects will offset. The current schedule for this proceeding, which includes briefing in April and May of 201474 and proposed evidentiary hearings regarding GWR in February 2015, could easily accommodate such hearings.


Landwatch Monterey County Joinder in Surfrider Foundation Comments

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT CANCELLATION NOTICE September 19, 2013

 Governance Committee Cancellation Notice 09-19-13 CANCALLATION NOTICE
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPY PROJECT
September 19, 2013

Friday, September 13, 2013

REVISIONIST HISTORY: Courtesy of Jason Stilwell, City Administrator

ABSTRACT:  Of the two contracts between the City and Mark Alcock, forensic examiner, one contract is for payment of up to $25,000, dated February 25, 2013, and another contract is for payment of up to $25,000.  At the 10 September 2013 City Council meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a contract amendment to “continue support services and IT consulting to continue the ongoing examination of the city’s IT infrastructure and related technology needs” with payment up to $43,500 and another contract amendment for “ongoing IT professional examiner services” with payment up to $60,000.  According to the search warrant issued by the Honorable Judge Robert O’Farrell and served at McInchak’s residence on June 5, 2013, Carmel Police detective Rachelle Lightfoot declared “under penalty of perjury” that Alcock told her he was hired by the city on February 27 “to do an examination of McInchak’s work computer,” and that his investigation began on March 6, when he went to McInchak’s office to examine his desktop computer while administrative services director Susan Paul and Carmel Police Chief Mike Calhoun stood by.Alcock told me that he had been working with McInchak under the ruse that he was conducting an audit of the city’s computer system and servers,” she wrote in the warrant, according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone.  However, today, according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone, City Administrator Jason Stilwell said this week that the February 25 contract was for Alcock’s “risk assessment” of the city’s system, not for his investigation into McInchak’s alleged wrongdoing. For that forensic work, Stilwell said, a second $25,000 contract was drawn. “We originally brought Alcock on to survey our system, and we needed someone expert on technology to be able to do a risk assessment of our computer system and the network and applications, hardware, software and user support,” he said. “That was originally why he came in.” According to Stilwell, a second contract was drafted later, after Alcock uncovered McInchak’s alleged nefarious computer activity.We also needed his forensic services to support the investigation,” he said. “So we hired him to do that, too,” because the district attorney’s office did not have anyone available to do the work.
Conclusion:  City Administrator Jason Stilwell’s account that the February 25 contract was for “risk assessment” of the city’s system, not an investigation into McInchak’s alleged wrongdoing, is contradicted by Officer Rachelle Lightfoot’s declaration, made “under penalty of perjury in the Search Warrant Affidavit, that Mark Alcock told her that her was hired by the City on February 27  “to do an examination of McInchak’s work computer,” that his investigation began on March 6, and “Alcock told me that he had been working with McInchak under the ruse that he was conducting an audit of the city’s computer system and servers.”  Relevant excerpts from the SEARCH WARRANT and The Carmel Pine Cone article entitled “Expert to get $103K for McInchak, audit of city computers, MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 13, 2013, are presented.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Monterey, SEARCH WARRANT (Warrant No. 7682)
Affiant Officer Rachelle Lightfoot, Carmel Police Department, declared “under penalty of perjury that the information within my personal knowledge contained in this affidavit, including all incorporated documents, is true…, dated 6-5-13

On Tuesday, 05-28-13, at approximately 1000 hours, I was contacted by Commander Paul Tomasi of the Carmel Police Department in regards to possible misconduct of another city employee, Steve Mclnchak. Commander Tomasi told me that Mclnchak was suspected of using his position as Information Systems/Network Manager to access sensitive information from the city's computers. Commander Tomasi advised that the city had hired an outside Forensic Examiner to gather proof and facts. He asked that I contact the examiner and initiate an investigation.
On Wednesday, 05-29-13, At approximately 1100 hours, I met with Forensic Examiner, Mark Alcock, in my office. During introductions, Alcock told me that on 02-27-13, he was retained by the city of Carmel to do an examination of Mclnchak's work computer. Alcock told me that his credentials included being a retired police officer and had been examining computers since 1994. His job included identifying, preserving and recovering data from digital media devices, including computers, lap tops and personal digital assistants (PDAs),that may have been linked to or used in a crime. He told me that he also testified in court about information that was found or recovered and was considered an "expert" in his field by superior court standards.

Alcock told me that his investigation started on 03-06-13, when he went to Mclnchak office located at Vista Lobos (Torres & 3rd) to search his desk top computer. He was accompanied by City Human Resources Director, Susan Paul and Police Chief Michael Calhoun. Mclnchak was not present at the time.

Alcock provided me with Carmel's City Policy and Procedure Data Sheet and pointed out where it stated that city management had a right to access and monitor employee computers as needed and that the systems were restricted to city business. It stated that there was no expectation of privacy to extend to work related conduct or to the use of city owned equipment or supplies, that the information systems manager was to act under administrative direction, and that the use of access codes of other employees to gain access to their e-mail and phone messages, or any computer account was prohibited except by management Mclnchak's position was not considered a management position.

Alcock told me that he had been working with Mclnchak under the ruse that he was conducting an audit of the City's computer system and servers, and in conversation, got Mclnchak to admit that he frequently remotely accessed the city server from his home computer and lap top. Alcock said that from what he observed, this was a direct violation of policy. From their conversation, Alcock suspected that there was sensitive information that had been downloaded to Mclnchak's personal desk top just like his work computer.
 
Source: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of Monterey
SEARCH WARRANT
Warrant No. 7682

Expert to get $103K for McInchak, audit of city computers
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 13, 2013
At that time, The Pine Cone requested a copy of the contract with Alcock and received a heavily redacted agreement dated Feb. 25 that contained nothing more than generic language present in all city contracts. Even the “work product” he was to provide was redacted by public officials and attorneys.

But Stilwell said this week that contract was for Alcock’s “risk assessment” of the city’s system, not for his investigation into McInchak’s alleged wrongdoing. For that forensic work, Stilwell said, a second $25,000 contract was drawn.
“We originally brought Alcock on to survey our system, and we needed someone expert on technology to be able to do a risk assessment of our computer system and the network and applications, hardware, software and user support,” he said. “That was originally why he came in.”
According to Stilwell, a second contract was drafted later, after Alcock uncovered McInchak’s alleged nefarious computer activity. “We also needed his forensic services to support the investigation,” he said. “So we hired him to do that, too,” because the district attorney’s office did not have anyone available to do the work.
But in the search warrant served at McInchak’s home, Carmel Police detective Rachelle Lightfoot said Alcock told her he was hired by the city on Feb. 27 “to do an examination of McInchak’s work computer,” and that his investigation began on March 6, when he went to McInchak’s office to examine his desktop computer while administrative services director Susan Paul and Carmel Police Chief Mike Calhoun stood by.
“Alcock told me that he had been working with McInchak under the ruse that he was conducting an audit of the city’s computer system and servers,” she wrote in the warrant, which was served June 5 and returned to the court, with the list of confiscated items, June 13.
Source: Expert to get $103K for McInchak, audit of city computers
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 13, 2013

ADDENDUM:
At the Sept. 10 council meeting, the council OK’d increasing Alcock’s two contracts — which were originally approved outside the public eye — to $43,000 and $63,000, respectively. He has already received three payments totaling $43,984, though they did not appear in the city’s check register until months later.

Stilwell could offer no explanation for their delay, nor could he explain why only one contract was provided to The Pine Cone when two had been signed.


Source: Expert to get $103K for McInchak, audit of city computers
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 13, 2013

126240 5/8/2013 MARK ALCOCK 10,958.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
126410 6/5/2013 MARK ALCOCK 10,316.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $21,274.00
Note: Check Register June 16 - 30, 2013

126625 6/19/2013 MARK ALCOCK $ 21,710.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT SUPPORT
Vendor Total----->$ 21,710.00
Note: July 2013 Check Register

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT document is embedded.  Importantly, CONCLUSION The Parties respectfully request that the Commission adopt and approve the Settlement Agreement and grant California American Water a CPCN authorizing it to construct the MPWSP, which will include a desalination plant and the CAW-Only Facilities.

Settling Parties' Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement Filing Date 07-31-13
SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION document is embedded.  Importantly, CONCLUSION The Parties respectfully request that the Commission adopt and approve the Sizing Settlement and grant California American Water a CPCN authorizing it to construct the MPWSP.
 
SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 COMMENTS BY WATER PLUS ON SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ATTACHED TO SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, COMMENTS BY WATER PLUS ON SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ATTACHED TO SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT document is embedded.  Importantly, CONCLUSION The signatories to the Agreement have acted in the self-interest of the parties they represented but not explicitly in the interest of ratepayers. In their negotiations, they have paid little or no attention to the project criteria of adequacy, reliability, and cost-effectiveness put forward by ALJ Weatherford. To remedy these shortcomings, Water Plus, as an advocate for local ratepayers, urges the Commission to address these criteria in its evaluation of the Agreement and, compensating for the absence of competitive forces, to require Cal Am to offer the privately-owned component of its project for sale to a public agency immediately upon its completion at cost plus ten percent plus actual invested equity at the time of sale.

Water Plus on Settlement Agreement Filing Date 08-01-13
COMMENTS BY WATER PLUS ON SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ATTACHED TO SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE PROCEEDING

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE PROCEEDING document is embedded.  Importantly, CONCLUSION The Parties respectfully request that the Commission grant this motion to establish a separate phase of the proceeding to make the GWR Decision pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, establish a procedural schedule as set forth herein and make any necessary conforming changes in the scope of this proceeding.

SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE PROCEEDING Filing Date 08-21-13
SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE PROCEEDING

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 RESPONSE BY WATER PLUS TO SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE PROCEEDING

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, RESPONSE BY WATER PLUS TO SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE PROCEEDING document is embedded.  Importantly, CONCLUSION
…Water Plus urges the Commission to bifurcate the proceeding into a desalination-only option and a GWR-only option, each option alone capable of providing all the new water needed to meet the state’s cease-and-desist order on time. If desalination-only wins this competition, we further urge the Commission to require Cal Am to offer the desalination plant for sale to a local public agency under conditions determined by the Commission.

RESPONSE BY WATER PLUS TO SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE PROCEEDING Filing Date 08-22-13
RESPONSE BY WATER PLUS TO SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONTO BIFURCATE PROCEEDING

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S NOTICE OF RELEVANT COURT DECISION AND REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S NOTICE OF RELEVANT COURT DECISION AND REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE and ATTACHMENT A documents are embedded.  Importantly, Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”) hereby provides the Commission and the Parties notice of the issuance of a court decision relevant to these proceedings, in the interest of ensuring the completeness of the Commission’s record in the public interest. Pursuant to Rule 13.9 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, MCWD requests the Commission to take official notice that the relevant decision has been rendered and that it reverses the judgment in the underlying suit and requires the suit be dismissed.
The Court of Appeal decision is particularly relevant to this proceeding because the Commission, in its Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an EIR for this proceeding, indicated that its Subsequent EIR would be relying in part on its previous EIR for the Regional Desalination Project. (October 2012 NOP, pp. 2-3.)
A copy of the decision of the Court of Appeal is attached hereto as Attachment A.

Marina Coast Water District's Notice of Relevant Court Decision Filing Date 08-30-13
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S NOTICE OF RELEVANT COURT DECISION AND REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE

Attachment A Filing Date 08-30-13
ATTACHMENT A

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 SURFRIDER FOUNDATION'S REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, SURFRIDER FOUNDATION'S REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE document is embedded.  Importantly, Pursuant to Rule 13.9, Surfrider Foundation respectfully requests that the Commission take official notice of the following attached documents:  Attachment 1: State Water Resources Control Board, Order WR 2009-0060, Cease and Desist Order (Oct. 20, 2009); Attachment 2: California Public Utilities Commission, Policy Statement on Greenhouse Gas Performance Standards (Oct. 6, 2005); Attachment 3: State Water Resources Control Board, Notice of Application 30215A and Draft Permit for Diversion and Use of Water (Sept. 6, 2012).
 Surfrider Foundation's Request for Official Notice Filing Date 08-30-13
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION'S REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ 1) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 2) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ 1) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 2) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION document is embedded. Importantly, CONCLUSION Because the MPWSP, as proposed by the Settling Parties, would 1) violate MCWD’s rights under the 1996 Annexation Agreement, 2) violate the Agency Act, and 3) proceed on an insufficient record without the completion of the environmental review required by CEQA and the evidentiary hearing exploring environmental factors required by the Public Utilities Code, the Settlement Motions seek approval of agreements that are not reasonable in light of the whole record, are not consistent with law, and are not in the public interest. The project configuration must be modified to avoid injury to MCWD and to comply with the Agency Act. The project’s potential environmental impacts must be thoroughly examined through the Commission’s completion, evaluation and certification of its Subsequent EIR, and its exploration of the environmental impacts of the project at a hearing, and the deficiencies noted above must be corrected. Only after CEQA review is completed can the public agency Settling Parties have a sound basis for joining the settlements and approving the project, and only after environmental review is completed and the Commission conducts its evidentiary hearing on environmental factors can the record be sufficient to support the proposed settlements, project approval and the grant of a CPCN under the Public Utilities Code. Even assuming the environmental concerns noted above could be resolved, the Commission could only approve these or revised settlements if the MPWSP as described in the proposed settlements could be modified both so as to avoid injury to MCWD by using the CEMEX property for its source wells and to avoid illegally exporting groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, and the Commission then determined that the modified settlements were reasonable, consistent with law and in the public interest.
Absent revisions to the MPWSP and the settlements that resolve the legal problems posed by the project’s non-compliance with section 21 of the Agency Act and its placement of source wells on the CEMEX property, and absent the Commission’s lawful resolution of the environmental review issues raised above, MCWD respectfully requests that the Commission deny both of the Settlement Motions.


MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT'S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’.pdf Filing Date 08-30-13
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ 1) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 2) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 SURFRIDER FOUNDATION'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, SURFRIDER FOUNDATION'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION document is embedded.  Importantly, CONCLUSION ...Surfrider Foundation respectfully urges the Commission to reject the Sizing Agreement. The settling parties have not carried their burden; the Commission should therefore make an independent determination of the appropriate size of the desalination component of the MPWSP and impose appropriate conditions to ensure that the project advances the public interest and meets the relevant environmental mandates. Without the EIR, the record is incomplete and cannot support the Sizing Agreement. If the Commission determines that the record will be insufficient to support the agreement even after the EIR's release, the Commission should direct further evidentiary hearings at the earliest reasonable date. The Commission's determination could require further evidence on topics including, but not limited to: (1) the amount of water that lots of record are reasonably likely to demand, (2) the expected demand from tourism bounce back, (3) how customer demand in each tier will change in response to the rate increases that the MPWSP will cause, and (4) how much potable water the Pacific Grove projects will offset. The current schedule for this proceeding, which includes briefing in April and May of 201474 and proposed evidentiary hearings regarding GWR in February 2015, could easily accommodate such hearings.

Surfrider Foundation's Comments on the Proposed Settlement Agreement on Plant Size and Level of Operation Filing Date 08-30-13
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE'S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE PRPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED MOTIONS SUBMITTED IN A. 12-04-019

ABSTRACT:  Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE'S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE PRPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED MOTIONS SUBMITTED IN A. 12-04-019 document is embedded.  Importantly, CONCLUSION The Settlement Agreements are not reasonable in light of a complete record, nor are they consistent with developing law in the State of California, nor can they be demonstrated to be "in the public interest." For the foregoing and additional unarticulated reasons, the Public Trust Alliance requests that the Commission not adopt the complex, partial settlement agreements submitted in A. 12-04-019 and not grant the motions sought by settling parties and instead leave the water supply issue open for reasonable public debate in appropriate forums without arbitrary prejudice.

Public Trust Alliance's Consolidated Comments on Proposed Partial Settlements Filing Date 08-30-13
PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE'S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE PRPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED MOTIONS SUBMITTED IN A. 12-04-019

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES September 12, 2013

 MPRWA Agenda Packet September 12, 2013AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
September 12, 2013

Mprwa Draft Minutes 09-12-13
DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
September 12, 2013

Sunday, September 08, 2013

‘Resolve & Remembrance:’ Carmel’s September 11th Memorial’s Unveiling Ceremony & Exhibition

 
Carmel’s 9/11 Memorial entitled “Resolve & Remembrance”
Devendorf Park, near N.W. Corner @ Mission St. & 6th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
 


"RESOLVE & REMEMBRANCE" - Carmel 911 Memorial

“The steel was cut and received by the Monterey Firefighters Association at Randall’s Island, New York, gifted expressly to Carmel-by-the-Sea. From there they transported it across the U.S.A., with intermittent stops to share with Americans along the way.”

The “Resolve & Remembrance” memorial will be an imposing granite boulder with the engraved piece of Ground Zero steel seemingly floating over it. Granite Rock and Granite Construction have donated the boulder. City appointed landscape designer Michelle Comeau created the setting for the memorial at the Mission St. and 6th Av. location in Devendorf Park.

WHO: Carmel-by-the-Sea Kiwanis & CarrieAnn, Founder of "Resolve & Remembrance"

WHAT: Carmel’s 9/11 Memorial entitled “Resolve & Remembrance
During the Ceremony, the steel will be placed into the granite boulder, “its home for present and future generations to touch and view in remembrance of the tragic events of 2001."

WHERE: Devendorf Park, Ocean Av. & Mission St.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

WHEN: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 @ 8:50 A.M. a procession of local firefighters, police, American legion members and special guests will walk a piece of World Trade Center steel from Carmel City Hall on Monte Verde St. to Ocean Avenue eastward to Devendorf Park.

Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, September 11, 2013, 10:30 A.M. – 4:00 P.M. Exhibition in the Carmel Plaza.  The exhibition will feature 9/11 artifacts and films of the steel’s journey across the country.

ADDENDUM:
Resolve & Remembrance on Facebook

The Making of a Memorial
A Piece of New York City’s World Trade Center Finds a Home in Carmel, Carmel Magazine
BY JERRY GERVASE

Carmel 9/11 Memorial Journey

CONTACT INFORMATION:
CarrieAnn, Founder of "Resolve & Remembrance"
CarrieAnn@carmel911memorial.us
(831) 624-6242

Thursday, September 05, 2013

PUBLIC WATER NOW: Monterey Peninsula Water Service Local Ownership and Cost Savings Initiative

UPDATES:
Training sessions for water petition drive
Public Water Now will host a training seminar Tuesday on how to collect signatures for the organization's initiative aimed at public ownership of the Monterey Peninsula's water system.
The group will be collecting 7,100 signatures to qualify for the June 2014 ballot.
WHEN: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 @ 6:30 P.M., 7:00 P.M. & 7:30 P.M.; Session duration 20 minutes
WHERE: Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Road, Carmel.

Two meetings set on takeover of Cal Am
Public Water Now representatives will give two presentations on a proposed public takeover of the local California American Water system.

WHO: Ron Cohen and Harvey Billig
WHEN: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 from 7:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.
WHERE: Peace Resource Center, 1364 Fremont Blvd., Seaside.
For information, call 622-7455 or see www.publicwaternow.org.
WHO: Tom McDonald
WHEN: Thursday, September 12, 2013 @ 12:00 P.M.
WHERE: Rancho Cañada, 4860 Carmel Valley Road, Carmel Valley.

Fee $22 for Monterey Peninsula Republican Women Federated members and $25.00 for others.
To RSVP, call 375-3573 or email Kelly Ann Foy at kaf61@hotmail.com.

ABSTRACT:  On Wednesday, September 4, 2013, PUBLIC WATER NOW released the petition of the initiative entitled “Monterey Peninsula Water Service Local Ownership and Cost Savings Initiative,” according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald.  PUBLIC WATER NOW, “a community-based organization dedicated to publicly owned water NOW on the Monterey Peninsula,” will hold a "kickoff" event Tuesday, September 10, 2013, at Unitarian Universalist Church of the Monterey Peninsula in Carmel, stated Ron Cohen, Public Water Now managing director, including a series of signature-gathering "seminars" starting at 6:30 P.M. with the aim of placing the initiative on the June 2014 ballot.  The Ballot Initiative document is embedded. 

The Ballot Initiative
The Ballot Initiative

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Monterey water crisis: Group eyes ballot measure for public buyout of Cal Am
Initiative seeking public ownership proposed for June 2014 ballot
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 09/04/2013 08
Excerpt Highlights:
A proposed ballot measure seeks to require that the Monterey Peninsula water delivery system be publicly owned and that a plan for making the switch from a private company be studied within three months of passage.
The initiative, aimed at buying out California American Water, would have the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District require public ownership of any water system in its territory.
If approved by voters, the initiative would require the water management district's general manager to complete a feasibility analysis and acquisition plan, through negotiation or eminent domain, for district board consideration within 90 days.
Public Water Now is planning a "massive" signature-gathering drive aimed at collecting 710 valid signatures. The group will hold a "kickoff" event Tuesday at Unitarian Universalist Church of the Monterey Peninsula in Carmel, Cohen said. The event will include a series of signature-gathering "seminars" starting at 6:30 p.m.

Nine Noteworthy 10 September 2013 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Nine Noteworthy 10 September 2013 City Council Agenda Items, namely Announcements from Closed Session, Announcements from City Administrator, Consideration of a Resolution awarding a construction contract to Don Chapin Company, the lowest responsible bidder, for the 2013 Street Projects for a not to exceed amount of $443,860 and approval of $66,579 for project contingency, engineering and other related projects costs, Consideration of a Resolution awarding a construction contract to Monterey Peninsula Engineering, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, for the Santa Fe and Fourth Storm Drain Relocation Project for a not to exceed amount of $324,030 and approval of an amount not to exceed of $48,605 for project contingency, engineering and other related projects costs, Consideration of a Resolution adopting the Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs) between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Employees Union- an affiliate of the Laborers' International Union of North America, United Public Employees of California, LIUNAIUPEC, Local 792, AFLCIO; and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Management Employees Union - an affiliate of the Laborers' International Union of North America, United Public Employees of California, LIUNAIUPEC, Local 792, AFL-CIO, Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to amend existing contracts with Mark Alcock related to the City's ongoing information technology requirements and professional examiner services in an amount not to exceed $43,500 for contract ma-sec-ma-002-2013 and $60,000 for contract ma-examiner-003-2013, Receive the 4th Quarter City financial report, Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an application for a plan revision (DS 12-111) to install a metal roof on a residence located at the SE comer of Ocean A venue and Carmela Street and Sixth Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District and Receive an update on Carmel's Water Conservation Work Plan. are presented. Supporting materials are embedded. 


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
4:30 p.m., Open Session

City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues



II. Roll Call

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

  1. Announcements from Closed Session
1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation- Government Code Section 54957.
Title of Position: City Engineer.

2. Property Negotiations - Government Code Section 54956.8, Property strategy negotiations regarding the lease of Flanders Mansion (APN 01 0-061-005).

3. Potential Litigation- Government Code Section 54956.9(b).2- Conference with legal counsel regarding potential litigation - one (1) matter.

4. Labor Negotiations- Government Code Section 54957.6 (a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea's Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Stilwell to give direction regarding terms and conditions of employment for all represented and unrepresented employees.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

1. Introduction of Community Planning & Building Director- Rob Mullane

2. Introduction of Fire Chief- Gaudenz Panholzer

3. Summary Report from Monday's Workshop

4. 4th Quarter Financial Report

5. Update on 2013 Key Initiatives

VII. Consent Calendar

These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.

J. Consideration of a Resolution awarding a construction contract to Don Chapin Company, the lowest responsible bidder, for the 2013 Street Projects for a not to exceed amount of $443,860 and approval of $66,579 for project contingency, engineering and other related projects costs.
 
Resolution Awarding a Contract to Don Chapin Company 09-10-13

K. Consideration of a Resolution awarding a construction contract to Monterey Peninsula Engineering, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, for the Santa Fe and Fourth Storm Drain Relocation Project for a not to exceed amount of $324,030 and approval of an amount not to exceed of $48,605 for project contingency, engineering and other related projects costs.

Resolution Awarding a Contract to Monterey Peninsula Engineering Inc. 09-10-13

N. Consideration of a Resolution adopting the Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs) between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Employees Union- an affiliate of the Laborers' International Union of North America, United Public Employees of California, LIUNAIUPEC, Local 792, AFLCIO; and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Management Employees Union - an affiliate of the Laborers' International Union of North America, United Public Employees of California, LIUNAIUPEC, Local 792, AFL-CIO.

Resolution Adopting a MOU 09-10-13

Resolution Adopting the Memoranda of Understanding 09-10-13
 
O. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to amend existing contracts with Mark Alcock related to the City's ongoing information technology requirements and professional examiner services in an amount not to exceed $43,500 for contract ma-sec-ma-002-2013 and $60,000 for contract ma-examiner-003-2013.

Authorize the City Administrator to Amend Existing Contracts With Mark Alcock 09-10-13

Q. Receive the 4th Quarter City financial report.

Fourth Quarter FY 2012-13 Performance Report 09-10-13

VIII. Orders of Council

B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an application for a plan revision (DS 12-111) to install a metal roof on a residence located at the SE comer of Ocean A venue and Carmela Street and Sixth Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The applicant is Bill Hayward.

Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision 09-10-13

D. Receive an update on Carmel's Water Conservation Work Plan.

Receive an update on Carmel's Water Conservation Work Plan 09-10-13.pdf